get_game

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists exact output fields and notes the input requirement. There are no hidden side effects or unstated behaviors; as a read operation, this is sufficiently transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, information-dense, and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first lists the output components, the second provides input acquisition guidance. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool returns a complex breakdown, and the description enumerates all components, so the agent knows what to expect despite no output schema. The single parameter is fully contextualized with usage guidance. This is complete for one-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already defines slug with example, but description adds meaning by explaining where to get the slug ('from list_opportunities first') and that a known slug can also be passed. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'full breakdown for one game' with enumerated components (scores, confidence, risk flags, reason, video ideas, related games). Clearly distinguishes from siblings by indicating it is per-game and requires a slug, contrasting with list_opportunities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit instruction to obtain slug from list_opportunities first, which implies the typical workflow and alternative. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.